Summary

SUMMARY

I want to ENDORSE your plan

I have QUESTIONS or FEEDBACK about your plan

I want to RANT about your plan (welcome; please explain why).

Dedicate 50% of annual increases in state revenues for K-12 education, until full implementation of basic education reform is complete in 2018.

Benefit: Revenues are increased for K-12 education without creating a new tax, nor increasing tax rates.

Tenet 1: Reserve a Portion of Annual Increases in State Revenues for K-12 Education Reform

Set all districts to the 24% levy lid collection rate, reduce all grandfathered districts to 24%, and shift those levy collections into the existing $3.60 state-collected portion of the property tax. Create a Local Burden Assistance (LBA) fund, paid out of education revenues, to account for undue tax burdens in low-assessed-valuation districts.

Benefit: Provides education revenue in an equitable, consistent manner, most of which is already being collected locally for basic education programs. Uses existing state-based tax authority to collect an already-authorized education tax (the 24% levy lid), and caps collections at the existing $3.60 authority ceiling. Leverages the LEA formula to apply LBA relief for burdensome tax rates, ensuring equity in contribution.

Tenet 2: Shift the 24% Levy Lid to State Collection

Reserve the increased bonding authority realized with Tenet 2 for K-12 capital improvements, such as new schools, necessary for education reform. Weight assistance toward needy districts, and require local effort to receive matching. Use collections of regionally vetted previously-built stock plans to ensure cost- and instructionally-sound construction efficiencies.

Benefit: Enables improved basic education throughout the state, including districts without available space. Promotes financial efficiency by using vetted plans, adjusted architecturally and cost-wise for different regions. Ensures local participation to receive match, but recognizes the need for local assistance.

Tenet 3: Use State bonding to Address Required Capital Improvements

Since implementation of these programs happen over an eight-year period - from 2010 to 2018 - there is opportunity to fund elements on varied schedules: some elements should be implemented early; some evenly over time, others toward the end.

Benefit: Prioritizes funding toward high-impact, high-return program elements that serve the neediest students. In many cases, will provide early benefits to districts that would see increased overall levy rates based on Tenet 2. Programs targeted would include: pre-k for at-risk children; all-day kindergarten weighted toward high-poverty districts; classroom reduction for high-poverty schools; enhanced ELL programs; enhanced LAP programs.

Tenet 4: Implement Reform by Funding the Neediest Students First

Reform local levy rate lids to 10% or $1 per $1,000 of assessed value (AV), whichever is more. Retain the Local Effort Assistance (LEA) formula as it is today. To mitigate potential future increases in the levy lid, and associated potential for disparity among statewide programs, pass a law that requires local levy proceeds that exceed the 10% or $1 per $1000 AV limits deposit 50% of those excess revenues into the LEA fund.

Benefit: Retains communities’ ability to contribute to local schools, while reducing the levy lid from 24% to 10%. Enables high AV districts to levy on assessed value rather than their student base, and balances levy lid rates with statewide equity among programs.

Tenet 5: Reform Local Levies: Enable Local Participation Without Statewide Disparity

WELCOME

Thanks for visiting. On this site you’ll find the details of a holistic, sustainable plan for funding education reform in Washington state. I’ve called this The Iseminger Education Finance Plan, and it’s based on five implementation elements, or tenets, that collectively chart an attainable course to funding education reform in Washington state.

This page provides a summary of the plan. Each box below explains one of the five tenets and describes its benefits. I’ve also done the financial modeling of this plan... and simply put, it works. Individual tenets wouldn’t be enough on their own, but when taken holistically, this plan can fund a redefined plan of basic education in Washington as outlined in ESHB 2261.

There’s a lot more detail available; more reasoning, more explanations, and the actual modeling that I’ve worked through. There’s also an explanation for the naming of this plan, and it may not be why you think. If that sort of detail interests you, follow one of the links at the bottom of the page. If you just want the basics, you should get enough from this page to form an opinion. You’ll also find information on this page about supporters of this plan, so take a moment to look through that as well.

Thanks for caring enough about education to visit. If something here strikes you as interesting, send me feedback using the links at the bottom of the page. I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

David Iseminger

in Washington state

‣Op-Ed in the Seattle Times - May 2010
‣Speech given at the WASA / WSSDA Legislative Conference, February 2010
‣Testimony provided at the House Education committee, and the Senate K-12 education committee hearing on each bill
‣Companion bills, HB 2746 and SB 6740, introduced by Rep. Hope (R) and Sen. Hobbs (D).

SUPPORTERS

Good plans are rarely the work of one individual, and this plan is no exception. I’ve spoken to as many education stakeholders as I can think of, and received all sorts of positive feedback and support. While I must clarify these are not endorsements from any of these organizations (except WSSDA, which endorsed the plan in December 2009), I’ve spoken with, and received input from individuals from WSSDA, WASA, WEA, Mitch Denning from WASBO/AEA, PSE/SEIU, OSPI and OFM, local Education Associations (EAs), the League of Education Voters (LEA), and many other education veterans including Pete Bylsma, who provided great feedback and suggestions.

I’ve also talked with many legislators about the plan. Three stand out:

Rep. Mike Hope (R - Lake Stevens) committed to the plan from the beginning, discussing details with me often (still today), and then took action: he crafted the original legislation and dropped it the very first day of session. Rep. Hope was relentless in pushing the bill, both in the legislature and at home, and brought other legislators on as cosponsors of the bill - Reps. Priest and Sullivan - to garner bipartisan support. Even though the bill didn’t pass, Hope has committed to continuing the push next session.

Sen. Steve Hobbs (D - Lake Stevens) dropped a companion bill in the Senate, creating bicameral and bipartisan support for the plan. He pushed the bill and brought on other education leaders as cosponsors. Even when it looked like the bill was not going to move, Sen. Hobbs pushed again... when it would have been easy not to do so. Sen. Hobbs has also committed to introducing the bill again next session.

And Sen. Eric Oemig (D - Kirkland) has been a strong supporter, pointed questioner, and invaluable idea challenger from the start. Having barely met, Sen. Oemig agreed to have coffee with me, with no idea I was going to spring an early version of this plan on him. Over the next few months we exchanged emails and phone conversations about the plan - him challenging elements, making suggestions, and sanity checking the details at each turn. But always, Oemig offered encouragement to continue, and legislative support. He cosponsored the companion bill with Sen. Hobbs, and cast a yes vote to move the bill out of the Senate K-12 Education committee.

All three of these legislators appreciate and champion the need for a long-term education finance plan, and just as importantly, they are acting on it. On the Senate side, the votes to pass the bill out of committee were bipartisan too. It’s worth listing who the YES votes were: Sens. McAuliffe (committee chair, and another solid supporter), Brandland, Gordon, Hobbs, Kauffman, King, McDermott, and Oemig.